Flying Saucers do not exist.

[Ezechiel]

They turn their lights on because they can.... And we can't do anything about it

 

[Jimi H.]

..
Lights? They could just be an emission of photons due to some interaction between the craft's displacement mechanisms and the composition of its outer shell. Your guess is as good as mine. They could also be trying to mimic our craft to blend in and become somewhat stealthy.The craft could range from a simple probe to a ship possibly carrying organic beings or inorganic sentient constructs (AI)... different configurations for different purposes. ...

Good thinking!

..
This brings up the point that Fort made about us being kept cattle... i paraphrased here... and "they" want us to know they are milling about and ultimately we are answerable to them...

Did the guy suffer from paranoia, I wonder?

I mean, it could be true, of course. It would just seem pointless, 'cause after blowing up nukes left and right, and basically polluting the Earth well and good, 'they' haven't seemed to put their foot down yet!

Think about this.

The conceptual evolution of visitors from space has centred on the notion of vehicle of travel. Early uptake saw some utterly simplistic notions and designs that came to form the bedrock of ufology. These concepts were, during their time, deemed advanced, novel, otherworldly. But viewed from our standpoint two or three generations later, thy appear positively childlike and contrived. Look back at the pictures of these flying saucers. It's almost embarrassing...

Yea, there are enough silly claims to go around, the toy looking Billy Meier UFOs being the archetypical hoaxy claim.
I agree that one does well to basically ignore all witness acounts that are not accompanied by some form of documentation, prefferably from several sources. At least, it's the only way forward for me, as an academic. Hence, there are very, very few cases that can form the basis of an actual argument that we are being 'visited' in one form or another. But there are plenty of cases to keep one's curiousty stimulated.

 

[manxman]

I dont believe we are getting visited by 'aliens', although its intriguing to read some case's of it, i do believe we have been visited by alien technology tho.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Think about this.

The conceptual evolution of visitors from space has centred on the notion of vehicle of travel. Early uptake saw some utterly simplistic notions and designs that came to form the bedrock of ufology. These concepts were, during their time, deemed advanced, novel, otherworldly. But viewed from our standpoint two or three generations later, thy appear positively childlike and contrived. Look back at the pictures of these flying saucers. It's almost embarrassing.

To match the delusion, our concepts have been subordinated to the plethora of creative science fiction out there today. New and fantastic concepts have given birth to a whole new range of designs which have attempted to transcend our notions of "today's technology".

Lights in the sky.
Why on earth would intergalactic visitors have lights on their craft. It's such an obvious question but never dealt with. The most economical answer is that they are simply powered vehicles that we have launched. Drones. Jets. Whatever.

Drifting around.
For 70 years or so flying saucers have demed it necessary to hover around several hundred meters off the ground. Always at night. And always with lights on.
Why do they never show themselves unequivocally. Why in all cases does the concept of parsimony and Occam's razor easily offer more economical explanations. What possible value can be argued for inter galactic visitors just coasting around in such a fashion. It's nonsense. Utter pure idiotic nonsense.

The historical evolution of images attributed to flying saucers has evolved both in terms of their outward design and their capability. They proceed in a linear fashion with how we ourselves develop new science fiction based narratives.

To ignore this is self seduction of the worst kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Herein lies the problem: The is no truth in what you claim. It would be most convenient, even ultimately relief inducing for many of the more so truth entrapped of us, if it were. You are denying no less reality here than the most ardent space brethren preachers would extoll to their ravenously deficit rich masses longing to hear tales of a utopiatic brave new world that won't ever be. This is to state unequivocally that you are preaching no less the same potential of comfort inducing pseudo skeptical sermonizing slop as the aforementioned brethren sect, albeit from a predictably polarized pulpit.

Enter Reality: The Author | UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record <-----Broad daylight, all kinds of it.

One must simply stand in the blinding light of the great WTF and make the choice to better define the questions, and stop pretending to know the answers no matter how convenient the party store of pretense makes them seem.

This paranormal predator is called struggle. It can be your friend, or your final nemesis, but no such frail sermon will save you from it's devouring jaws should you attempt to flee.

 

[Ezechiel]

One must simply stand in the blinding light of the great WTF and make the choice to better define the questions, and stop pretending to know the answers no matter how convenient the party store of pretense makes them seem.

This paranormal predator is called struggle. It can be your friend, or your final nemesis, but no such frail sermon will save you from it's devouring jaws should you attempt to flee.

I get your drift, convenient answers are what apologists provide when faced with disrupting phenomena of the radar traceable kind.

The phenomena potentially has a very wide range of origins. Until we have the proper technology to detect and observe other evolved sentient life forms on exoplanets or even hidden in our own solar system, broad brushed judgments on something this complex is pretty arrogant.

 

[tha_soda_punk]

Think about this.

The conceptual evolution of visitors from space has centred on the notion of vehicle of travel. Early uptake saw some utterly simplistic notions and designs that came to form the bedrock of ufology. These concepts were, during their time, deemed advanced, novel, otherworldly. But viewed from our standpoint two or three generations later, thy appear positively childlike and contrived. Look back at the pictures of these flying saucers. It's almost embarrassing.

To match the delusion, our concepts have been subordinated to the plethora of creative science fiction out there today. New and fantastic concepts have given birth to a whole new range of designs which have attempted to transcend our notions of "today's technology".

Lights in the sky.
Why on earth would intergalactic visitors have lights on their craft. It's such an obvious question but never dealt with. The most economical answer is that they are simply powered vehicles that we have launched. Drones. Jets. Whatever.

Drifting around.
For 70 years or so flying saucers have demed it necessary to hover around several hundred meters off the ground. Always at night. And always with lights on.
Why do they never show themselves unequivocally. Why in all cases does the concept of parsimony and Occam's razor easily offer more economical explanations. What possible value can be argued for inter galactic visitors just coasting around in such a fashion. It's nonsense. Utter pure idiotic nonsense.

The historical evolution of images attributed to flying saucers has evolved both in terms of their outward design and their capability. They proceed in a linear fashion with how we ourselves develop new science fiction based narratives.

To ignore this is self seduction of the worst kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good observation, but I think your being a little harsh on the idea of early conceptual interpretations of UFO's as being child like. If you've mastered the technology of flight without the use of combustial engines and fossil fuel propulsion, to maybe anti-gravity or a concept we still havent thought of yet; couldnt any design be feasible? We send our own probes to the moon and Mars when they look like big Tonka trucks with a balloon attached. Im pretty sure if we new martians had the ability to build a nuke and use it if they felt threatened, we would want to be as hidden and undetectable to the best of our abilities.
I do agree that it seems silly for lights to be on these things (ET crafts) since we tend to compare them to aerial objects we would only use for military purposes, which in that case it would need to be cloaked or not visible.
Most of these photos and videos can be easily identified if they were clear enough though, which frustrates me the most. All it really takes is a Tesla like person with an infatuation with aeronautics, some good tools and a concept he might of read in a 1950's Weird Science comic and voilà, you got a UFO going viral on youtube. I gotta say Im with you on this for the most part, but I'll still keep looking up until I see my first real UFO and then I'll cross it off my checklist of things I obsessed over before I died. [emoji3]

 

[Jeff Davis]

I get your drift, convenient answers are what apologists provide when faced with disrupting phenomena of the radar traceable kind.

The phenomena potentially has a very wide range of origins. Until we have the proper technology to detect and observe other evolved sentient life forms on exoplanets or even hidden in our own solar system, broad brushed judgments on something this complex is pretty arrogant.

It really has nothing to do with any prequalifier in terms of evidential typography. Anomalous weather phenomena create hard radar tracks all the time. Pilots and other extremely trained and accredited witnesses see UFOs vividly in broad daylight wherein no radar evidence is obtained despite their thorough local vicinity's radar tracking. Radar equals meaninglessness with respect to UFOs.

The bottom line is that the ONLY common thread that exists with respect for UFOs is the consciousness/cognitive interface of our observations wherein they enter the realm of human experience. P-e-r-i-o-d.

This may seem like a broad sweeping this or that, but it's a fact, much like the sky is most commonly perceived as being blue on a clear day. It's why this is the case that is meaningful. Otherwise we are just taking ignorance for granted. It's all in the questions Ezechiel, due to the fact that there are NO answers to which we can relate observationally. Projecting meanings into the fabric of reality is no different than any other form of pareidolia. It's illusion.

Deep and underlying studies in consciousness are the only way that we will ever meet the paranormal on it's actual coexistent common ground. Otherwise we are temporally bound to a non synchronized understanding which is to state there won't be any. A man cannot stand 5 days prior to the 18th of October, 2014, nor 5 days post this date and expect to actuate a primary knowledge of said date. There is a synchronized window however where cognition meets consciousness and this is the relationship that experiences reality outside the interpretive construct of time. The study of consciousness holds the key to operating this window minus the constraints of human induced illusion. Again, with reference to this non synchronized interface, waking observation knows no such liberty, no matter how qualified the observer. We have been shown this over, and over, again.

 

[Wade]

Come to think of it do any of you guys know if there has ever been a daylight sighting by pilots or other observers that mentioned bright light displays ? I don't think I've come across very many if any. If these lights were from exotic tech they should be just as pervasive...and still visible... during the day as night which would buttress ezechiel's point that the occupants do have some control over them. If they are used as a sort of nav light in an attempt to mimic our craft it's certainly a case of overkill and i'm sure that would readily be apparent to the othereise intelligent occupants. I'd have to consider that the christmas tree displays probably are intentional, which begs the question "why?"

 

[Polterwurst]

To ignore this is self seduction of the worst kind.

I'm a university lecturer in the UK.

You know, that's actually sad.

 

[darka1404]

Ok so there is no life out there so why is the U.S. military after Intel on them

 

[darka1404]

Ya daylight Ya lots I know a ww 2 p 51 pilot that ran into a foo fighter over Schweinfurt he told me about it after me and dad found cows we had feed the night before diced up on his farm he was sick so we were helping him out. He said it was a real common to get buzzed.

 

[darka1404]

Do you know anyone in the military intelligence community or the military at all.

 

[mike]

At the risk of feeding the troll

Our own science is now saying C isnt the top speed you can go, and that the vast distances involved in space travel are not given the right technology, uncrossable.

The chances are almost infinately greater that we are being visited than not.

Trying to apply human logic and motivation to a non human entity, and perhaps trying to apply biological logic and motivation to a non biological sophont is likely to yield just that very same conundrum we see in the OP.

Trying to fit the square peg of non terrestrial entitys into the round hole of human behavior is more likely than not to yeild confusion rather than answers.

The real question as far as im concerned is not are they here, its why are they being elusive.

My personal view is we are being subtly prompted, coached to some sort of parity. Be that technological, social or even evolutionary parity.

It may be that "lights" on craft are for the same reason we humans use them from planes to bicycles, to be seen. Or their function may be totally outside our human experience, Perhaps byproducts of exotic propulsion/manouvering systems.

At this point in time we can only guess, and that may be the reason why. To make us guess, to get us to think about why

Giving a technologically inferior society the answers/technology is a proven recipie for disaster. Letting them get their in their own time, under their own steam is a safer way to acheive parity.

And if we are dealing with post/trans biological sophonts, then the discussion goes to a whole new level.

What we see as "lights" might be information transponders, operating at frequencys our eyeballs simply cant process.

 

[Wade]

Trying to apply human logic and motivation to a non human entity, and perhaps trying to apply biological logic and motivation to a non biological sophont is likely to yield just that very same conundrum we see in the OP.

This sentiment had come up several times in the past few days which leads me to ask if a entity or force doesn't conform to our sense of logic is it logical to try to apply the scientific method to study ufos ? As the scientific method is based on our logic if the subject in question doesn't conform to what we consider a logical conclusion it world seem to render the scientific method moot.

If the these lights are either emissions or even information transponders why aren't more daytime ufos reported to display these lights ? Does this mean that UFO's aren't transmitting information or making use of their propulsion technology in the daytime?

Whenever we come to a inconvenient issue like that...maybe because there are factors involved we can't possible know...we gravitate to something that is temporally fulfilling, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich, "well we can't necessarily apply our logic here". I don't disagree with that assessment but it makes me question if there is any point to try to study something that doesn't play according to our rules. How do we know that any evidence that is left in some cases isn't intentional and a red herring and therefore shouldn't be considered evidence? This would seem to be a logical conclusion to something that doesn't conform to our logical senses.

 

[exo_doc]

Think about this.

The conceptual evolution of visitors from space has centred on the notion of vehicle of travel. Early uptake saw some utterly simplistic notions and designs that came to form the bedrock of ufology. These concepts were, during their time, deemed advanced, novel, otherworldly. But viewed from our standpoint two or three /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////The historical evolution of images attributed to flying saucers has evolved both in terms of their outward design and their capability. They proceed in a linear fashion with how we ourselves develop new science fiction based narratives.

To ignore this is self seduction of the worst kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Much as I hate the possibility of feeding trolls, I have to ask.........Derek Wood, if your mind is already made up on the subject wouldn't you be just wasting your time on this site?
Are you so ...ummm..."anti-UFO"( flying saucer, or whatever you want to call it) you feel driven to post on a site that primarily deals with unknown things in the sky to enhance your own non-belief? Or are you just looking for an argument?

What is your real purpose for posting on here?

 

[Ufocurious]

oh my!
So pointless. UFOs come in many forms. Some are light, some emanate light, some have lights. People that see UFOs will be forever curious about what they are and what kind of intelligence is behind them. The people who have not seen UFOs will mainly doubt if they really exist.

 

[boomerang]

Think about this.

The conceptual evolution of visitors from space has centred on the notion of vehicle of travel. Early uptake saw some utterly simplistic notions and designs that came to form the bedrock of ufology. These concepts were, during their time, deemed advanced, novel, otherworldly. But viewed from our standpoint two or three generations later, thy appear positively childlike and contrived. Look back at the pictures of these flying saucers. It's almost embarrassing.

To match the delusion, our concepts have been subordinated to the plethora of creative science fiction out there today. New and fantastic concepts have given birth to a whole new range of designs which have attempted to transcend our notions of "today's technology".

Lights in the sky.
Why on earth would intergalactic visitors have lights on their craft. It's such an obvious question but never dealt with. The most economical answer is that they are simply powered vehicles that we have launched. Drones. Jets. Whatever.

Drifting around.
For 70 years or so flying saucers have demed it necessary to hover around several hundred meters off the ground. Always at night. And always with lights on.
Why do they never show themselves unequivocally. Why in all cases does the concept of parsimony and Occam's razor easily offer more economical explanations. What possible value can be argued for inter galactic visitors just coasting around in such a fashion. It's nonsense. Utter pure idiotic nonsense.

The historical evolution of images attributed to flying saucers has evolved both in terms of their outward design and their capability. They proceed in a linear fashion with how we ourselves develop new science fiction based narratives.

To ignore this is self seduction of the worst kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Asking the wrong questions leads to wrong or irrelevant answers. Based on an overview of the UFO phenomenon since 1947, the root question becomes: Why have so many sane, intelligent and credible people stepped forward with personal accounts of bizarre things seen in the sky and on the ground? One need go no further than a video perusal of accounts by such people to conclude that something in our everyday view of reality is amiss.

 

[mike]

This sentiment had come up several times in the past few days which leads me to ask if a entity or force doesn't conform to our sense of logic is it logical to try to apply the scientific method to study ufos ? As the scientific method is based on our logic if the subject in question doesn't conform to what we consider a logical conclusion it world seem to render the scientific method moot.

If the these lights are either emissions or even information transponders why aren't more daytime ufos reported to display these lights ? Does this mean that UFO's aren't transmitting information or making use of their propulsion technology in the daytime?

Whenever we come to a inconvenient issue like that...maybe because there are factors involved we can't possible know...we gravitate to something that is temporally fulfilling, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich, "well we can't necessarily apply our logic here". I don't disagree with that assessment but it makes me question if there is any point to try to study something that doesn't play according to our rules. How do we know that any evidence that is left in some cases isn't intentional and a red herring and therefore shouldn't be considered evidence? This would seem to be a logical conclusion to something that doesn't conform to our logical senses.

IMO Science does have a role to play, Keeping in mind science itself is relative.

The "science" of the 1800's would not have the necessary lexicon to describe with detail many of the technologys we employ today.

Ive long maintained that parity includes scientific language, that is to say Our scientific knowledge itself needs to grow to a point where it can accurately describe what UFO's are and how they work.

I'll give a fictional example to illustrate. I'm reading a book now where we have spacecraft that use a tiny black hole singularity projected in front of the craft which causes the craft to fall towards it, the drive mechanism flickers this on and off and the craft is pulled forward donkey/carrot style.

The science of the 1700's would not have had the terminology to describe this mechanism, but that doesnt by extension mean the scientific method cant describe that mechanism.

Im of the view that as our own science advances, we will gain the technical language needed to describe and understand UFO's

Another example. Many accounts make mention of "aliens" using telepathy to comunicate. 50 years ago that very concept "telepathy" was from the realms of woo woo.
New age hocus pocus.

Today we are developing technological synthetic telepathy, the idea "aliens" might use telepathy seems more plausible than it might have before our own technology gave us proof of concept for just such a marvel.

Telepathy has gone from being "silly" to in the context of facilitated via a technological mechanism , one that is no longer from the realms of hocus pocus magic

Army developing ‘synthetic telepathy’ - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com | NBC News

Synthetic Telepathy


»

As intelligence or sensory “amplifiers”, the implantable chip will generate at least four benefits:
1) it will increase the dynamic range of senses, enabling, for example, seeing IR, UV, and chemical spectra;
2) it will enhance memory;
3) it will enable “cyberthink” — invisible communication with others when making decisions, and
4) it will enable consistent and constant access to information where and when it is needed. For many these enhancements will produce major improvements in the quality of life, or their survivability, or their performance in a job.

 

[Derek Wood]

They turn their lights on because they can.... And we can't do anything about it

Any yet more totally unnecessary and biased supposition. Distorting the picture to fit your own premise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derek Wood]

At the risk of feeding the troll

Our own science is now saying C isnt the top speed you can go, and that the vast distances involved in space travel are not given the right technology, uncrossable.

The chances are almost infinately greater that we are being visited than not.

Trying to apply human logic and motivation to a non human entity, and perhaps trying to apply biological logic and motivation to a non biological sophont is likely to yield just that very same conundrum we see in the OP.

Trying to fit the square peg of non terrestrial entitys into the round hole of human behavior is more likely than not to yeild confusion rather than answers.

The real question as far as im concerned is not are they here, its why are they being elusive.

My personal view is we are being subtly prompted, coached to some sort of parity. Be that technological, social or even evolutionary parity.

It may be that "lights" on craft are for the same reason we humans use them from planes to bicycles, to be seen. Or their function may be totally outside our human experience, Perhaps byproducts of exotic propulsion/manouvering systems.

At this point in time we can only guess, and that may be the reason why. To make us guess, to get us to think about why

Giving a technologically inferior society the answers/technology is a proven recipie for disaster. Letting them get their in their own time, under their own steam is a safer way to acheive parity.

And if we are dealing with post/trans biological sophonts, then the discussion goes to a whole new level.

What we see as "lights" might be information transponders, operating at frequencys our eyeballs simply cant process.

You have one of the most irrational and unscientific multi faceted outpouring. You offer so many "could be" scenarios but without any evidence.

Put a child on an island who worship giraffes and elephants as being the mother and father of that island population and that child, without recourse to other streams of information is probably destined to grow up worshiping pictures of elephants and giraffes.

My point being so many people are victims of poorly prescribed and evidence bereft ideas that are as creative as they are unscientific.

You fall into this category.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk